Truth Catching Up With Armstrong?

[eduardoSC]

[email protected] wrote:
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>
> > There is no privilege to the patient's statements made in the presence of
> > third parties to the doctor or those on staff (employed/retained) working
> > for the doctor. If subpoened he doctor will have to testify as to what the
> > patient said.
>
> Subpoenaed by whom? Ken Starr? Patrick Fitzgerald? HUAC?
> Operacion Puerto? The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on
> Investigations? The Truth and Reconciliation Commission?


House Un-American Activities Committee.

During the SCA Promotions lawsuit, wasn't testimony given by several
who were with the Andreu's and Armstrong during this exchange with the
doctor - directly refuting the Andreu's claim of an admission of
performance enhancing drug use by Armstrong (or at least, that they had
no recollection of such an admission by Armstrong at that time) ?
Wasn't that counter-testimony key to the suit being decided in
Armstrong's favor?

 

[B. Lafferty]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> > Subpoenaed by whom? Ken Starr? Patrick Fitzgerald? HUAC?
>> > Operacion Puerto? The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on
>> > Investigations? The Truth and Reconciliation Commission?
>>
>> The way it generally works with arbirtaion proceedings is that a part
>> wishing to compel the appearance of a non-party witness prepares a
>> subpoena,
>
> What's being arbitrated?
>
Whatever is subject to an arbitration agreement.

 

[B. Lafferty]

"eduardoSC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
>> B. Lafferty wrote:
>>
>> > There is no privilege to the patient's statements made in the presence
>> > of
>> > third parties to the doctor or those on staff (employed/retained)
>> > working
>> > for the doctor. If subpoened he doctor will have to testify as to what
>> > the
>> > patient said.
>>
>> Subpoenaed by whom? Ken Starr? Patrick Fitzgerald? HUAC?
>> Operacion Puerto? The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on
>> Investigations? The Truth and Reconciliation Commission?
>
>
> House Un-American Activities Committee.
>
> During the SCA Promotions lawsuit, wasn't testimony given by several
> who were with the Andreu's and Armstrong during this exchange with the
> doctor - directly refuting the Andreu's claim of an admission of
> performance enhancing drug use by Armstrong (or at least, that they had
> no recollection of such an admission by Armstrong at that time) ?
> Wasn't that counter-testimony key to the suit being decided in
> Armstrong's favor?
>

The arbitration never went to a decision. It was settled prior to findings
of law and/or fact by the panel of arbitrators.

 

[B. Lafferty]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> > Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
>> >
>> >>B. Lafferty wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news;_yl...ug=cnnsi-thetruthisoutth&prov=cnnsi&type=lgns
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The doctor has no legal standing to comment on what transpired during
>> >>treatment, absent an executed consent form.
>> >> Of course, these records could be subpoenaed, I suppose. But
>> >> sometimes
>> >>hospitals instruct their doctors on what to put in progress notes. A
>> >>patient's medical records should certainly be complete in terms of past
>> >>medication use. Failure to do this could open the hospital and
>> >>personnel to liability.
>> >> OTOH, the information needs to be verifiable, and here's the sticking
>> >>point. The medical staff would have to know that a history of
>> >>performance enhancing drugs would be sensitive information, so it might
>> >>well be omitted from the written record.
>> >> During my residency, we were called to the ER for all facial trauma.
>> >>We were initially told to note if the patient was obviously drunk, or
>> >>obviously had alcohol on their breath. However, we were cautioned
>> >>later
>> >>in the year to omit all such references to "AOB" since they were
>> >>subjective (and we certainly had no cause to run blood alcohols on
>> >>these
>> >>guys).
>> >>
>> >>Steve
>> >>
>> >>--
>> >>Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
>> >>http://www.dentaltwins.com
>> >>Brooklyn, NY
>> >>718-258-5001
>> >
>> >
>> > I've read a lot of charts myself (as one involved in patient
>> > treatment). I always read the history dictation. From what I have
>> > seen over the years at a wide variety of hospitals, I believe that if a
>> > doctor heard it from the patient, the subsequent dictation would
>> > reflect past history significant for xxxx, yyyyy, zzzzz, etc.
>> > Testosterone, cortisone, hgh and EPO are all noteworthy for one about
>> > to head to chemo.
>>
>>
>>
>> Surely.
>> >
>> > And I'd say that most doctors make a note of most anything significant
>> > from the past anyway. Even if they smoked cigarettes for 3 months 40
>> > years ago.
>>
>>
>> I hope so.
>> >
>> > Lance also made a huge donation to his oncologist's clinic right around
>> > the time of the trial. A nice reminder of the benefits of not talking
>> > bad about someone wealthy.
>>
>>
>> Well, it would be interesting to find that surgeon or oncologist. If
>> it turns out that there was a third party and the record is at some
>> point subpoenaed, that would about do it.
>>
>> Steve
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
>> http://www.dentaltwins.com
>> Brooklyn, NY
>> 718-258-5001
>
> I don't know how medical records can enter into the court process.
> Wouldn't it be logical to just subpeona Armstrong's charts from the
> time he was in the hospital? Or (even in court) does he have to give
> his permission?
>
If the litigation is initiated by the patient, and the patient's medical
records are relevant to the case, they can be demanded during discovery
(unintentional pun) and subpoenaed if necessary or made subject to a
discovery order.

 

[Mark & Steven Bornfeld]

B. Lafferty wrote:

> "Mark & Steven Bornfeld" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:KhZNg.606$cf2.565@trndny07...
>
>>B. Lafferty wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Mark & Steven Bornfeld" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:daWNg.598$cf2.160@trndny07...
>>>
>>>
>>>>B. Lafferty wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news;_yl...ug=cnnsi-thetruthisoutth&prov=cnnsi&type=lgns
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The doctor has no legal standing to comment on what transpired during
>>>>treatment, absent an executed consent form.
>>>>Of course, these records could be subpoenaed, I suppose. But sometimes
>>>>hospitals instruct their doctors on what to put in progress notes. A
>>>>patient's medical records should certainly be complete in terms of past
>>>>medication use. Failure to do this could open the hospital and personnel
>>>>to liability.
>>>
>>>
>>>There is no privilege to the patient's statements made in the presence of
>>>third parties to the doctor or those on staff (employed/retained) working
>>>for the doctor.
>>
>>Not to argue the legalities with you, Counselor, but what if the doctor
>>maintains that there is no third party present to his knowledge and
>>memory?
>>
>>Steve
>
>
>
> Then the judge holds a hearing to determine if anyone else was present.
> Whether the doctor remembers it or not, the issue is whether the presence of
> a third party prevents the patient from asserting the privilege. The
> privelege is the patient's t assert, not the doctor. If the patient
> authorizes the doctor to testify, the patient has waived his/her privilge.
>
>

Sure. I'd love to see the patient authorize the doctor to testify
under oath.

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

 

[Mark & Steven Bornfeld]

B. Lafferty wrote:

> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
>>
>>>[email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>B. Lafferty wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news;_yl...ug=cnnsi-thetruthisoutth&prov=cnnsi&type=lgns
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The doctor has no legal standing to comment on what transpired during
>>>>>treatment, absent an executed consent form.
>>>>>Of course, these records could be subpoenaed, I suppose. But
>>>>>sometimes
>>>>>hospitals instruct their doctors on what to put in progress notes. A
>>>>>patient's medical records should certainly be complete in terms of past
>>>>>medication use. Failure to do this could open the hospital and
>>>>>personnel to liability.
>>>>>OTOH, the information needs to be verifiable, and here's the sticking
>>>>>point. The medical staff would have to know that a history of
>>>>>performance enhancing drugs would be sensitive information, so it might
>>>>>well be omitted from the written record.
>>>>>During my residency, we were called to the ER for all facial trauma.
>>>>>We were initially told to note if the patient was obviously drunk, or
>>>>>obviously had alcohol on their breath. However, we were cautioned
>>>>>later
>>>>>in the year to omit all such references to "AOB" since they were
>>>>>subjective (and we certainly had no cause to run blood alcohols on
>>>>>these
>>>>>guys).
>>>>>
>>>>>Steve
>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
>>>>>http://www.dentaltwins.com
>>>>>Brooklyn, NY
>>>>>718-258-5001
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I've read a lot of charts myself (as one involved in patient
>>>>treatment). I always read the history dictation. From what I have
>>>>seen over the years at a wide variety of hospitals, I believe that if a
>>>>doctor heard it from the patient, the subsequent dictation would
>>>>reflect past history significant for xxxx, yyyyy, zzzzz, etc.
>>>>Testosterone, cortisone, hgh and EPO are all noteworthy for one about
>>>>to head to chemo.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Surely.
>>>
>>>>And I'd say that most doctors make a note of most anything significant
>>>>from the past anyway. Even if they smoked cigarettes for 3 months 40
>>>>years ago.
>>>
>>>
>>>I hope so.
>>>
>>>>Lance also made a huge donation to his oncologist's clinic right around
>>>>the time of the trial. A nice reminder of the benefits of not talking
>>>>bad about someone wealthy.
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, it would be interesting to find that surgeon or oncologist. If
>>>it turns out that there was a third party and the record is at some
>>>point subpoenaed, that would about do it.
>>>
>>>Steve
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
>>>http://www.dentaltwins.com
>>>Brooklyn, NY
>>>718-258-5001
>>
>>I don't know how medical records can enter into the court process.
>>Wouldn't it be logical to just subpeona Armstrong's charts from the
>>time he was in the hospital? Or (even in court) does he have to give
>>his permission?
>>
>
> If the litigation is initiated by the patient, and the patient's medical
> records are relevant to the case, they can be demanded during discovery
> (unintentional pun) and subpoenaed if necessary or made subject to a
> discovery order.
>
>

I would think the records could be subpoenaed if related to the case
whether the patient is plaintiff or defendant. Certainly in malpractice
actions both parties demand records of the other.
My brother lost a patient in the downing of Pan Am flight 103 over
Lockerbie Scotland. The patient's widow subsequently signed a release
for dental records to be sent to Scotland Yard for ID of the body.
Subsequently the FBI made the same request, and the patient refused to
cooperate. My attorney said that if the FBI called back to tell them
that they'd need a court order, in which case of course I'd have to
comply (I'm guessing that today mebbe the FBI would just show up at my
door). They never called back though.

Steve


--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

 

[[email protected]]

B. Lafferty wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
> >> [email protected] wrote:
> >>
> >> > Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>B. Lafferty wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news;_yl...ug=cnnsi-thetruthisoutth&prov=cnnsi&type=lgns
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> The doctor has no legal standing to comment on what transpired during
> >> >>treatment, absent an executed consent form.
> >> >> Of course, these records could be subpoenaed, I suppose. But
> >> >> sometimes
> >> >>hospitals instruct their doctors on what to put in progress notes. A
> >> >>patient's medical records should certainly be complete in terms of past
> >> >>medication use. Failure to do this could open the hospital and
> >> >>personnel to liability.
> >> >> OTOH, the information needs to be verifiable, and here's the sticking
> >> >>point. The medical staff would have to know that a history of
> >> >>performance enhancing drugs would be sensitive information, so it might
> >> >>well be omitted from the written record.
> >> >> During my residency, we were called to the ER for all facial trauma.
> >> >>We were initially told to note if the patient was obviously drunk, or
> >> >>obviously had alcohol on their breath. However, we were cautioned
> >> >>later
> >> >>in the year to omit all such references to "AOB" since they were
> >> >>subjective (and we certainly had no cause to run blood alcohols on
> >> >>these
> >> >>guys).
> >> >>
> >> >>Steve
> >> >>
> >> >>--
> >> >>Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
> >> >>http://www.dentaltwins.com
> >> >>Brooklyn, NY
> >> >>718-258-5001
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I've read a lot of charts myself (as one involved in patient
> >> > treatment). I always read the history dictation. From what I have
> >> > seen over the years at a wide variety of hospitals, I believe that if a
> >> > doctor heard it from the patient, the subsequent dictation would
> >> > reflect past history significant for xxxx, yyyyy, zzzzz, etc.
> >> > Testosterone, cortisone, hgh and EPO are all noteworthy for one about
> >> > to head to chemo.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Surely.
> >> >
> >> > And I'd say that most doctors make a note of most anything significant
> >> > from the past anyway. Even if they smoked cigarettes for 3 months 40
> >> > years ago.
> >>
> >>
> >> I hope so.
> >> >
> >> > Lance also made a huge donation to his oncologist's clinic right around
> >> > the time of the trial. A nice reminder of the benefits of not talking
> >> > bad about someone wealthy.
> >>
> >>
> >> Well, it would be interesting to find that surgeon or oncologist. If
> >> it turns out that there was a third party and the record is at some
> >> point subpoenaed, that would about do it.
> >>
> >> Steve
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
> >> http://www.dentaltwins.com
> >> Brooklyn, NY
> >> 718-258-5001
> >
> > I don't know how medical records can enter into the court process.
> > Wouldn't it be logical to just subpeona Armstrong's charts from the
> > time he was in the hospital? Or (even in court) does he have to give
> > his permission?
> >
> If the litigation is initiated by the patient, and the patient's medical
> records are relevant to the case, they can be demanded during discovery
> (unintentional pun) and subpoenaed if necessary or made subject to a
> discovery order.

This litigation was initiated by Armstrong. If plaintiff testimony was
expected to describe the admission of past drug abuse to docs, it would
seem logical that they would also want a look at his chart. I'm
guessing they found nothing of that sort, and that would be tough stuff
to make vanish.

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
"B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:

> > I don't know how medical records can enter into the court process.
> > Wouldn't it be logical to just subpeona Armstrong's charts from the
> > time he was in the hospital? Or (even in court) does he have to give
> > his permission?
> >
> If the litigation is initiated by the patient, and the patient's medical
> records are relevant to the case, they can be demanded during discovery
> (unintentional pun) and subpoenaed if necessary or made subject to a
> discovery order.

I know this to be so. Saw a matter where plaintiff's
medical records were demanded to support a counter-claim
of diminished capacity and shared negligence caused by
prescribed medications. They were produced.

--
Michael Press

 

[Bleet Norf]

B. Lafferty wrote:
> http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news;_yl...ug=cnnsi-thetruthisoutth&prov=cnnsi&type=lgns
>
>

Frankie sez:
To be accepted you absolutely had to use doping products. But of
course I never did. Oh, except for a couple races and never during The
Big One.

riiiiiiiiight

 

[Fred Fredburger]

Donald Munro wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>> The farther into the past something gets, the less likely
>> you are to ever actually know the "truth," and the more
>> nebulous what we call "truth" becomes.
>
> Well I suppose you could always study the background radiation.
>

What would you learn from that? I thought it was a widely accepted fact
that God mucks about with the rates of radioactive decay when he gets
bored or is feeling a bit listless.

 

[Fred Fredburger]

B. Lafferty wrote:
> "eduardoSC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> B. Lafferty wrote:
>>>
>>>> There is no privilege to the patient's statements made in the presence
>>>> of
>>>> third parties to the doctor or those on staff (employed/retained)
>>>> working
>>>> for the doctor. If subpoened he doctor will have to testify as to what
>>>> the
>>>> patient said.
>>> Subpoenaed by whom? Ken Starr? Patrick Fitzgerald? HUAC?
>>> Operacion Puerto? The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on
>>> Investigations? The Truth and Reconciliation Commission?
>>
>> House Un-American Activities Committee.
>>
>> During the SCA Promotions lawsuit, wasn't testimony given by several
>> who were with the Andreu's and Armstrong during this exchange with the
>> doctor - directly refuting the Andreu's claim of an admission of
>> performance enhancing drug use by Armstrong (or at least, that they had
>> no recollection of such an admission by Armstrong at that time) ?
>> Wasn't that counter-testimony key to the suit being decided in
>> Armstrong's favor?
>>
>
> The arbitration never went to a decision. It was settled prior to findings
> of law and/or fact by the panel of arbitrators.

That's a true and fair answer to his second question.

The short answer to his first question is "Yes, it happened that way."
SCA then agreed to a settlement that was larger than the initial payout
would have been.

All of which says a little bit about Andreu's story, a lot about SCA's
legal team, and not much at all about whether LA doped or not.

The point here really being that there were people who heard the same
thing Andreu did but remember it differently. That happens sometimes.
What can you decide from that?

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:

> This litigation was initiated by Armstrong. If plaintiff testimony was
> expected to describe the admission of past drug abuse to docs, it would
> seem logical that they would also want a look at his chart. I'm
> guessing they found nothing of that sort, and that would be tough stuff
> to make vanish.

How come the big-buck attorneys and private investigators didn't come
up with the name of the doc who allegedly asked a somewhat implausible
question in a definitely implausible situation?

>From what I've read, the outcome in arbitration was a foregone
conclusion, due to terms of the contract. Following, every effort was
made to smear Armstrong's name in public, including picking up his
discarded chewing gum, calling a long list of "old news" (Rip van
Walsh, for one) witnesses, and the Andreus for their lame testimony. It
seems to me the only one who could really have done some PR damage was
the imaginary doc. Why didn't they find him and make him show, too?

This, in contrast to all the other reported testimony, would have been
damning: "Yes, I asked Lance Armstrong on suchandsuchadate, in front of
several witnesses (pointing them out, Perry Mason style) if he had ever
used, in these words, 'any performance-enhancing drugs', and he
answered in the affirmative, naming substances x, y, and z". POW!!!
Didn't happen, though...

SCA's lawyers pushed it to the point of having to pay reallybigbux, and
folded. IOW, they were paying for publicity "in front", trying to do
the absolute most damage possible to Armstrong in the public eye, and
in the business world. So where was the Questioning Doc?

I'll imagine one possibility: If he existed such as has been portrayed
in the first place, of course, it would be trivial to find the doc, and
interview him. His response would probably have been: (imagining a
reality here): "Asking such a question in such a setting is so
completely unprofessional, and, should even the accusation that I, by
name, asked such a question in such a setting become widely public, the
damage to my career and my hospital would be so great, that you will
never get me to testify that I asked that question or anything like it,
any time any place, whether I ever asked it or not, any time, any
place."

So, what they were gonna get was "the doc", with full medical
authority, denying Besty Andreu, who "couldn't remember his name" or
whatever blah blah blah, and testified that she hated Lance Armstrong.

If he is real, Doc stayed home and played golf. Lance got the money.
The nabobs continued to scratch for *anything*.

I guess the gum came up negative? --D-y

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, B.
Lafferty ('[email protected]') wrote:

> If the litigation is initiated by the patient, and the patient's medical
> records are relevant to the case, they can be demanded during discovery
> (unintentional pun) and subpoenaed if necessary or made subject to a
> discovery order.

Well, you wouldn't want them to be subject to a postal order (intentional
pun).

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Friends don't send friends HTML formatted emails.